Allahabad High Court
BRIJESH KUMARversusSTATE OF UP AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the approval order dated 21-06-2023 that granted a fisheries lease to the respondents. The standing counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection that under Rule 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, an appeal against the order lies before the District Magistrate, providing an alternative remedy. The Court held that because an alternative statutory remedy is available, it would not entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the remedy under the Rules. No further orders were made beyond returning the certified copy of the order to the petitioner's counsel.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Rule 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 is available
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 59
Subjects
- writ petition
- alternative remedy
- U.P. Revenue Code Rules
- Rule 59
- fisheries lease
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17767 of 2026
Brijesh Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Nath Tripathi, Prashant Mani
Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sudhir Bharti
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Standing Counsel for State-
respondents and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the approval order dated
21.06.2023, approving the grant of fisheries lease to the respondents.
3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that under
Rule 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, an appeal is provided before
the District Magistrate, against the order impugned.
4. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to
entertain the instant petition.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
avail the remedy as available to him under law.
6. Certified copy of the orders, if any, be returned to learned counsel for the
petitioner after retaining photo copy of the same.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…